RE: New Oil Field on International Licence 801 & 8029 Feb 2023 10:10
Morning Mike,
Last day in GC before returning to freezing UK ! Mrs already booked 2 more breaks whilst here so you can see the trend.
Should be getting a divi declaration this week to avoid divi anxiety…lol, that and a load of other news this month.
I’ve copied a post from Spangle on ADVFN. posted after 802 news released. His view, a managed blowout and he does have technical expertise -;
‘I think the "cautious optimism" tone set by Brendan Long at WHI is appropriate.
So, with a conventional (non-CASP) viewpoint...
On the plus side, the controlled blowout, I'm sorry, "addition to daily production", is delivering ca. 800 bopd. This is happening with drilling mud in the well. Drilling mud has additives to increase its density, the effect of which is to increase the hydraulic head of the fluid from the drill bit to surface to counteract the pressure of the reservoir (to stop blowouts happening!). When a well is on production, there is oil from the reservoir to surface, effective density lighter than water, so the hydraulic pressure restricting flow from the reservoir is much less than with mud. Flow rate is proportional to fluid differential. Thus, all things being equal, flow rates under production conditions would be higher.
Also, if they drill on and uncover more oil-filled reservoir, that could improve rates too.
Conversely, this "unexpected production" is from open hole conditions, where there are no man-made impediments to flow from the whole open section since the last casing shoe. The forward plan, which is more clear in WHI's note than in the RNS, is to get the additional production under control through circulating heavier mud, drill on through this upper target to 4100m, clean, log, and run metal liner/casing across this interval, cement, and perforate it, then stimulate with acid and test. I know, I know, any one of those words has been a stumbling block in the past - stuck logging tools, can't get casing down, fouled cement job, unable to perforate sufficiently.
But even assuming that they successfully secure and complete this section, the volume of rock in connection with the well through tiny perforation tunnels is much smaller than with open hole flow, and there is a degree of "skin factor" (not a tangible skin, but an additional pressure drop caused by the perforation process). In open hole flow, any fractures that cross the wellbore, and which are like motorways for flow, will contribute, whereas once completed, unless a perf tunnel happens to hit a fracture, they aren't directly connected.
Yes, of course I'm hedging. I've got my professional standards to consider ;-) But hopefully it gives you some idea that the final rate that could be delivered on any successful test has factors that are both plusses and minuses compared to the flowrates reported this morning.